W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-background] Curved borders intersecting backgrounds of inner boxes

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:30:44 -0700
Message-Id: <F7736D70-C259-461C-A154-5E6D2FF74167@gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> But the initial value for 'background-clip' is 'border-box' (sadly),  
> which means that (unless "the element's box" is always the box  
> indicated by 'background-clip') you would get a weird clipping shape  
> if you followed the text quoted above, whenever you didn't change  
> the initial value of ¡®background-clip¡¯ (it would clip to the padding 
>  box for the flat areas, and then jump to the outside of the curves) 
> .  And we don't want the clipping to work differently for non-zero b 
> order-radius, because one doesn't expect border-radius to affect lay 
> out.
>
> What I'm getting at, is that this is not just an issue for 'border- 
> radius', it is also for 'background-clip'. We should add something  
> to ¡®background-clip¡¯ similar to what we are saying about border-radi 
> us:
>
> Other effects that clip to the border or padding edge (such as ¡®over 
> flow¡¯ other than ¡®visible¡¯) also must clip to the box indicated by  
> 'background-clip'.

On the other hand, I don't know how to resove the fact that the  
initial value of ¡®background-clip¡¯ is 'border-box' and the extisting  
behavior is to clip 'overflow:<not visible>' to the padding box, while  
still wanting 'border radius' to clip to the appropriate curve.
>
Received on Monday, 12 April 2010 18:31:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT